Ranked battles are (should be) about the individual. If, as you say, it is about "competitive play" and playing to get a win, then it is just a random battle.

A ranked battle system should be judging the player as a single unit within the team irrespective of what the team around him do. If the player does X amount of damage that exceeds the expectations of the chosen tank, but the team harvests potatoes, then that player shouldn't be penalised.

Play any other game that has similar rankings, wins always matter

Also if one has a team of potatoes they would likely have a poor team rank so they would actually lose only a small amount of points on a loss and if individual effort is decent as stated by wg then the player would lose next to nothing

But in all ranked battle games ive ever seen; Cod, Destiny, Overwatch, & WoWS you still need to win.

Also if one has a team of potatoes they would likely have a poor team rank so they would actually lose only a small amount of points on a loss and if individual effort is decent as stated by wg then the player would lose next to nothing

But in all ranked battle games ive ever seen; Cod, Destiny, Overwatch, & WoWS you still need to win.

This isn't COD, Destiny or any other game: this is WoT. This game is set up towards the individual. The ranked battles should reflect this. A streak of 10 individual awesome matches without a win should not see that player lose out on any points whatsoever. None at all.

This isn't COD, Destiny or any other game: this is WoT. This game is set up towards the individual. The ranked battles should reflect this. A streak of 10 individual awesome matches without a win should not see that player lose out on any points whatsoever. None at all.

Hmmmm? Your argument makes no sense. All these games are Team Based, not geared towards the individual. Even wot is clearly team oriented.

Hmmmm? Your argument makes no sense. All these games are Team Based, not geared towards the individual. Even wot is clearly team oriented.

You clearly haven't understood. I never said the other games weren't team based.

To put the argument as clear and concise as possible; ranked battles should reward the individual contribution irrespective of the "team" result.

A player pulling out unicum results every game and not winning should not be losing any points at all. As it currently is the system is punishing players for having the bad luck of being with players playing badly.

You clearly haven't understood. I never said the other games weren't team based.

To put the argument as clear and concise as possible; ranked battles should reward the individual contribution irrespective of the "team" result.

A player pulling out unicum results every game and not winning should not be losing any points at all. As it currently is the system is punishing players for having the bad luck of being with players playing badly.

Once you are ranked, if you lose against an unranked player or low ranking team you will lose alot of points even with individual efforts, but only until the system levels out, then individual efforts will both earn more points on a win and less loss of points on a loss all the way to a zero point lost total, but you have to let the ranks populate 1st.

Which is why once I'm ranked i wont play again till Sat/Sunday many of the teams your gonna face right now will both net you less points on a win and more points lost on a loss.

Once you are ranked, if you lose against an unranked player or low ranking team you will lose alot of points even with individual efforts, but only until the system levels out, then individual efforts will both earn more points on a win and less loss of points on a loss all the way to a zero point lost total, but you have to let the ranks populate 1st.

Which is why once I'm ranked i wont play again till Sat/Sunday many of the teams your gonna face right now will both net you less points on a win and more points lost on a loss.

lol So, when it "settles down" will a unicum performance within a team loss result in a loss of points or a gain of points?

Have a think about your answer to that within the whole scope of the previous discussion between ourselves.

It will lead to no changes in points, or a much smaller loss in points, since it was a loss, the player still needs to secure a win since that is the objective of this mode, if one does not want to win he should stay in the regular game modes.

It will lead to no changes in points, or a much smaller loss in points, since it was a loss, the player still needs to secure a win since that is the objective of this mode, if one does not want to win he should stay in the regular game modes.

It says in the blurb, battles /test2 that we are rated against the other team. What is it that we are rated with,how is the rating arrived at. It's all tier 5 so shouldn't it be,in general, allmost equal. This is another reason not to have premium ammo.

Certain tanks seem to dominate the battles and are frequently used - T67, O-I, Chaffee.

Tanks (KV-1) didn't perform the same as it did normally, with about 10 skills/perks on a fully trained crew?

Found that both my T67 and KV-1 would bounce perpendicular full side shots on medium and light tanks - another player in that match had the same issue on that tank.

If you play "next battle" after a match, the matchmaking often shuffles the last group and you are then playing with people that you may have just destroyed, or playing against people you just worked cooperatively with.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the scoring - you take 2 steps forward points/ranking wise and then in one battle you take 3 steps back and drop a level?

Because of the lower Tier, you had a large range of experience levels in one battle - this isn't a fair match.

Often heard frustrated players complaining in game chat because of inexperienced players or over experienced players.

Have better distribution of tank types in a match - in one match the teams had 4 Artillery, another had 6 Tank Destroyers?

Teams will race to the flag and capture it for a win and are guaranteed points?

SUGGESTIONS

Keep Tier equality and allow players to choose what Tier they wish to battle in - but keep a span of ranges that allows the widest player availability (Tier 5-8 maybe).

Match make according to players stats (experience/ability) - this further levels the playing field instead of having very skilled players using a Tier V tank with a crew that has 15 Skills/Perks playing against a new player that has almost no experience.

Skill level match making keeps people competitive and avoids turning people away because they get frustrated.

Adjust the scoring system so that players are awarded points based on their participation in the battle (Kills, Capture Points, Spots, Critical hits, Penetrations).

Adjust points system in a way so that players don't "take 1 step forward & 2 steps back".

Keep improving and keep up the good work!

I have tried to be objective and provide solutions to the things I thought were issues. I also realize with such a wide array of players, its almost impossible to "make everyone happy all the time".

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." -John 15:13 KJV